ID: nht92-4.21

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: JULIA WALL -- HEAD, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

TO: DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JULIA WALL (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Please send a copy, of the federal law that regulates student transportation in general and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans.

Thank you for your assistance. The copy should be sent to:

ID: nht92-4.22

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER, FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEM

TO: PAUL RICE -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-19-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PAUL GOULD (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: I have recently been conducting dynamometer tests to FMVSS 121, here at Cwmbran, and I have some questions which I would like to pose to you as a matter of clarification on the actual meaning of "Average deceleration Rate" and its tolerance.

Taking the Brake Power Test, as an example, the FMVSS states: S5.4.2 "shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average of 9fpsps".

When conducting such tests on our dynamometers, we would carry these out in Constant Torque Mode. The dynamometer is given a deceleration to achieve, and the pressure is modulated around that figure depending on the frictional variations during the stop.

For the Brake Power Test, the dynamometer would attempt to achieve 2.7 m/s2 (in SI units) or 26.49%g.

A typical result obtained from out tests is: Stop 1 26.55%g Stop 2 26.17%g Stop 3 25.93%g Stop 4 26.10%g Stop 5 26.13%g Stop 6 26.05%g Stop 7 25.85%g Stop 8 25.96%g Stop 9 25.94%g Stop 10 25.63%g

This represents a control capability to within 5% (although on the low side).

The FMVSS does not however state this either as a minimum or maximum deceleration.

The points on which I require clarification are:

1) Results presented in this way appear to be lower than required for FMVSS, however, given that only a 5% shift exists are these acceptable, bearing in mind that the more crucial requirements are the pressure limitations and the Hot Stop deceleration rate.

2) It is my interpretation that the deceleration rate is only a Target in order to fade the Linings, and to within an error of 5%, our method is acceptable, rather than aim for a higher deceleration rate, which may mean much higher average deceleration than that stated in the FMVSS. This is also not strictly correct. I also wish to add that during the testing, the pressure utilised was well within the FMVSS demands.

I am sure that it is just a matter of interpretation, but it is vital to clear this up for future testing commitments.

ID: nht92-4.23

DATE: August 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/11/92 from Steven Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during

nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. *** At night the taillight will always be steady- burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each...motorcycle...when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps...shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

ID: nht92-4.24

DATE: August 25, 1992

FROM: Jerry Beck

TO: Mr. Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jerry Beck (A40; VSA 102(4)

TEXT:

I have a product I would like to market at the consumer level. My product is reflective decals that would be placed on vehicles. I would like to know of any regulatory considerations before beginning to market the product.

To give you a better understanding about my product here is the basic idea. One decal will be placed on the back side of the rear view mirror and the other will be placed on the rear bumper. Sizes are approximately 2 x 8 inches for the front and 3 x 7 inches for the rear sign. Words and a symbol will only be reflective.

My concern is I do not want to market any product that would be either illegal or create a driving hazard. I have spoken with an accredited product testing company and they did not know what specification or if any apply to reflective decals. I would appreciate you providing me with any requirements so I can ensure my product will be both legal and safe for consumer use.

Since I have not started marketing yet please keep the information in this letter confidential. Thank you for your help in this matter.

ID: nht92-4.25

DATE: August 25, 1992

FROM: Paul D. Barron -- Professional Technologies International Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA Chief Counsel; Marvin Shaw

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul D. Barron (A40; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thanks for your help on the possible requirements from NHTSA on our UV Heat Shield product. As I understand it this product can be self certified and needs no certification from the federal government.

Please confirm this in formal documentation to me at your earliest convenience.

Attachment

PRODUCT ANALYSIS SOLAR SHIELD

(Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-4.26

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chuck Anderson -- Assistant Commissioner for Public Safety, State of Minnesota

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/86 from Erika Z. Jones to Clennie H. Murphy, Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

This refers to your recent telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff regarding the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to buses used to transport children to and from Head Start facilities.

Please be advised that it remains the opinion of this agency that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Enclosed for your information are two opinions previously issued by this office explaining our underlying rationale: Memorandum to Clennie H. Murphy, Jr., Acting Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau, dated January 31, 1986; and letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, Editor, Day Care Information Service, Bethesda, MD, dated September 27, 1985. Also enclosed is a coy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, issued jointly by the Federal Highway Administration and this agency. This guideline may be found at 56 Federal Register 19270, dated April 26, 1991.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.27

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal and Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from S. Watanabe (signature by P.P. F. Nakayama) to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 7, 1992, with respect to the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two configurations of rear stop/taillamps and center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on passenger cars.

In your Figure 1, the stop/taillamps are mounted at 72 inches height above the road surface, while the CHMSL is mounted 3 inches below the rear window. In your Figure 2, the stop/taillamps are again mounted at 72 inches while the CHMSL is mounted above the rear window and between the stop/taillamps. You believe that both Figures depict a conforming rear lighting scheme under Standard No. 108.

You are correct. Standard NO. 108 does not specify any spatial relationship between the CHMSL and stop lamps or taillamps. It permits the CHMSL to be mounted anywhere on the vertical centerline of the passenger car, but not lower than 3 inches below the rear window. Standard No. 108 also permits stop and taillamps to be mounted not higher than 72 inches above the road surface. Your two Figures do not exceed these regulatory parameters, and thus, each is permitted by Standard No. 108.

However, the research that proved the efficacy of the CHMSL in addressing the problem of rear end collisions was based upon a triangular configuration of stop lamps in which the CHMSL was the apex. We note that the CHMSL in Figure 1 is at the apex of an inverted triangle, while in Figure 2 the CHMSL is simply a lamp in a horizontal array. It is possible that the benefits of the CHMSL would not be realized through use of the configurations depicted in Figures 1 and 2, even if they are permitted by Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-4.28

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R.J. Misorski -- Director, Maintenance & Repair, Maersk Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from R.J. Misorski to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7638)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht92-4.29

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Dewey -- Captain, Rochester (NY) Police Department, Research and Evaluation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/6/92 from Robert A. Dewey to NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 7505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 6, 1992, inquiring whether a device on your newly acquired police vehicles "which requires the operator to depress the brake pedal in order to remove the car from the park position with the shift lever" is required by Federal law or regulation, and whether you may deactivate the device.

You explained in your letter that the Rochester Police Department has recently acquired 46 new police vehicles, each equipped with a device that requires the brake pedal to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position. You stated that you were told by a local Ford dealer that the device was required by a Federal safety standard. You indicated that you recognize the safety advantage of such a feature for the general public, but you see some negative safety implications for police vehicle operators. For example, you believe that an officer under fire could be delayed by this device in responding to the situation. You are also concerned that the presence of the device on some but not all of your vehicles may cause confusion among your officers who drive different cars every day.

Please be advised that the device in question is not required by Federal law or regulation. However, the vast majority of new passenger cars have this safety feature, which is intended to ensure that the driver's foot is on the brake pedal before the automatic transmission can be shifted from the "park" position. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent article concerning these devices which appeared in the Detroit News.

Since these devices are not required by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, there is no Federal requirement that prohibits you or a dealer from deactivating the device. If you decide to deactivate the device, however, we suggest that you consult with the manufacturer concerning how the device can be deactivated without otherwise affecting the vehicle.

I trust this will clarify the matter for you. If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Detroit News article entitled Automakers Quietly Add Safety Feature. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-4.3

DATE: September 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Becky Plank -- Executive Director, National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/26/92 from Becky Plant to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7535)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that your association consists of dealers that modify vehicles for the disabled, and that one modification that they perform is lowering a floor on a full size van. You noted that wheelchair drivers sit higher than other drivers and that this modification is made to provide them a clear view through the windshield. According to your letter, a problem has arisen in making this modification in certain new Ford vans because their fuel tank is larger and mounted mid-ship. You stated, however, that upon realizing this situation, Ford designed an aftermarket fuel system that it believes complies with Standard No. 301. Noting that the OEM fuel fill line needs to be changed, along with the mounting brackets, as well as other fuel lines, you asked whether this lowered system must be crash tested due to the original system being changed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Assuming they are done prior to the first consumer purchase, the operations your members anticipate conducting to lower a Ford van's floor would make these companies alterers, and the operations would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to a Standard like Standard No. 301 that specifies dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may also be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

In the situation at hand, if one of your members made the modifications recommended by Ford (the original vehicle manufacturer), then that member could base its certification of continuing compliance on Ford's representations that the van, with the modified fuel system, would comply with the applicable standards. If one of your members made modifications that differ from those recommended by Ford, then that member would need to base its certification of continuing compliance on some other facts that lead it to conclude that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with the standard.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.